Re: [Bro-Dev] New proposal (Re: CBAN naming)

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Robin Sommer wrote: > >> >> That all looks consistent except part (2) ends up pointing people >> toward existing docs/examples that reference “package” but with a >> different meaning. I'd need a decision to be made about how/whether >> to change

Re: [Bro-Dev] New proposal (Re: CBAN naming)

So sounds like this proposal is something you can agree with? On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:01 +, you wrote: > So scripts do not autoload, but plugins do? Thinking more about that I would answer: yes. Going back to the principle of least surprise, this is how it is now as well: scripts need

Re: [Bro-Dev] New proposal (Re: CBAN naming)

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 4:55 PM, Robin Sommer wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 21:08 +, you wrote: > >> Similar to Daniel’s question, is there a one time setup the user does >> or they need to modify local.bro every time they install a new >> container? > > In this case I

Re: [Bro-Dev] New proposal (Re: CBAN naming)

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 21:08 +, you wrote: > Similar to Daniel’s question, is there a one time setup the user does > or they need to modify local.bro every time they install a new > container? In this case I was thinking modify local.bro. That said, I remember your "load"/"unload" now,

Re: [Bro-Dev] New proposal (Re: CBAN naming)

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 1:50 PM, Robin Sommer wrote: > > - For shipping scripts: > >- We simply add to Bro's BROPATH. That means one > can now put "@load " into local.bro and Bro will look for > a __load__.bro inside the top-level container directory. That >

Re: [Bro-Dev] New proposal (Re: CBAN naming)

On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 14:14 -0500, you wrote: > Could you clarify what you mean by BRO_PLUGIN_PATH here? I mean we magically extend the BRO_PLUGIN_PATH so that Bro will find it there. No manual configuration, CBAN will take care of pointing Bro to the right place inside the plugin's

Re: [Bro-Dev] New proposal (Re: CBAN naming)

On 06/06/2016 01:50 PM, Robin Sommer wrote: > - For shipping binary plugins: > > - Through meta information, we let the author specify a build >command to build all their binary stuff, such as "./configure && >make && make test". The command line client runs that command >

[Bro-Dev] New proposal (Re: CBAN naming)

So Johanna and I just white-boarded a somewhat more generic approach that we believe would work well to cover the various use-cases without hardcoding much in terms of structure at all. The brief summary is that we would allow people to specify how to set BROPATH and BRO_PLUGIN_PATH, and how to

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN naming

On Sun, Jun 05, 2016 at 20:31 +, you wrote: > - New Container > - Script Container (e.g. what is currently called “script package”) > - Compiled Code Container (e.g. what is currently called “plugin”) Yep, and maybe that script container could then even replace all or some of

Re: [Bro-Dev] CBAN naming

Having reread through the discussion, I want to try to take a step back and review some of it. I believe there are two goals in play: 1) From a user's perspective, the principle of least astonishment. Names matter, and choosing something intuitive or familiar means we're not raising the barrier